Have to say discussion would be a fine change. So far all there has been on the subject of Scottish Independence on any thread from Unionists is sneering, insults, misrepresentation and other attempts at biased manipulation. So go for it...... give us the first intelligent question on the subject to be found on this forum to date and start the discussion you appear to welcome.
Without the EU, Scottish independence would have no chance, with the EU it has every chance. If Scotland leaves the UK I think Belgium would break up soon after. A lot of EU nations are not as homogeneous as people are led to believe. Italy, France and Spain all have huge regional differences with divergent interests. As the EU gains strength many of these regions may seek the greater autonomy of a federal relationship in the EU over their current national relationships. I do have a question though. What about the alternatives to full independence. What seems to be the popular feelings?
And nothing at all from those of you who support independence. What is one benefit independence would bring to Scotland?
Discussion? Well here is one to open. What do you think a Scottish independence will do for continental ethnic groups that have been denied statehood for a 100 years? The EU claims they all are adequately serviced by their host states. (Yeah, in a foreign language and with a manipulated history/literature curriculum in schools.) So, can a Scottish independence mean that finally those agressively assimilative EU nation states will now start the path of their own devolution? How can we export a Scottish independence philosophy into the continental EU?
Well. obviously, it would no longer have to live under an exploitive foreign government controlled by the City, the Yanks and the bankers. If only we could sell the home counties to the Russians and have a decent Britain again!
The answer could be this: why should Scotland prefer London to Brussels? Also, an independent Scotland may become the "leader" for continental ethnic groups that have been made impossible by nationalistic assimilation, and many of which are already history. Although it is also possible that Scotland will become the newest and most blood-thirsty EU nation state, drawing its power from the continental nation states, to balance against London. What would be your bet? (Disclaimer: "ethnic groups" don't mean 20th century immigrant communities.)
You have made many a fine post on this board, OQ, but that is one of my favourites. I am heartily sick of the sniping sneering mouthy half wits who invariably wander into any thread about Scotland, never knowing the first thing about the situation but invariably talking down to all and sundry from the vantage point of the mentally regressed.
The wars which ended the Catholic attempts to regain the UK were civil wars, Scots fighting English, Scots fighting Scots and Scots fighting with English as part of the army which wanted to unite UK and eradicate Catholic leadership. It was not England against Scotland, contrary to romantic tosh put about to attract tourists and sympathy and embellished by English arrogants (yes I said arrogants) to try to make Scots feel inadequate and on the back heel politically.
Inadequate? Is this a form of mind control? If it is, it works pretty well, considering the relationship of the Republic of Ireland to the UK, or the former African colonies to the UK. Even with their independence, they still think they would be inferior to the City and try to find evidence to boost their shafted ego. American lesson for your solution: borrow our even bigger in-your-face arrogance, straight from New York, Hollywood, and Washington.
I think he was asking for logical argument not more of the same Nationalist sentiment and anti English prejudice. To start with, considering people in Scotland already have far more self determination than people in England do how can the right to self determination be a logical argument in favour of independence?
LMAO... where is the logic in dependence if as you suggest, Scotland already has an amount of self determination? It is a completely natural progression to finish the job.
No it isn't, there is nothing natural in it at all. Scotland already has a say in matters pertaining to all of Britain. They already have absolute control of matters pertaining only to Scotland. They also have a say in matters pertaining only to England and Wales. Scottish MPs vote on laws which affect only England and Wales yet MPs outside Scotland don't vote on laws pertaining only to Scotland. So how can the right to self determination be a logical argument for independence? I'm trying to make a logical debate based on the facts here.
You are not making any argument. You don't understand it, you don't like it, the end. We all know the set up of UK Government, so what? England was given opportunity to vote on various local set ups and chose what they have. Now they are sorry and no doubt things will change rather more swiftly than they did when other UK countries were ruled by a government which did not prioritize anything other than London (oh wait, that is still happening). But choice is the point. Scotland is a different country with a different culture. It has lost interest in this alliance and if it chooses to end membership of a useless union for every reason any country exists, then who are you to gainsay the people and why would you even attempt it? Unless you are Scottish, it's none of your business.
"Unless you are Scottish, it's none of your business." is I'm afraid not reasoned rational or logical argument furthermore it does not answer the question. It is also not factual, I am not Scottish but it is very much my business. Once again. Given that someone in Scotland already has more self determination than someone in England how can the right to self determination be a logical argument for independence?
The question was answered. That you don't agree with the logical answer is a matter for you. Repeating it over and over makes no difference. And we are to take your word on that also. In what way is it your business? Once again, that lack of a question makes no sense whatsoever and repeating it doesn't change the pointlessness of it.
The only way it would be his business is if he is living in Scotland......in which case he can just vote No as a fair few, but by no means all, English residents in Scotland will.....because they neither understand, or care, what Scotland thinks about anything. England does not have devolution because England wasn't offered devolution by the predominantly English UK Government. Regions of England were....just as the three regions of Greater England were, and the regions of England rejected the option....but I think that if it had been a whole England option, as opposed to a piecemeal operation, there would have been devolution there as well, and no West Lothian question.
No, it isn't pointless. It has been implied that the Nationalist argument is based on fact and logic while all the Unionists have to offer is misrepresentation and manipulation. The point is that rational people around the world will now realise that the opposite is the case. So here are the facts. The SNP, after campaigning for Hitler in WWII, had practically no support anywhere until after they found oil in the North Sea. Their leader, Alex Salmond, is an oil industry economist. Need I say more.
Evidence please. I think you are presenting a sad example of what is described here. http://rueclementmarot.blogspot.com/2012/01/coming-unstuck.html
Independence for Scotland is not about establishing Scottish culture, whatever that might be. If you think it is, you will be doomed to disappointment if the vote goes the way you want. And as Alex Salmond's dreams for an independent Scotland are strongly based on his assumption Scotland will have all the revenue from British oil, it's very much our business. Why do you spell prioritise with a "z"? That's the American spelling.
and you believe that that is necessarily the truth, evidence that ????? No, this is just Scottophobia. The history was nothing to do with him having campaigned for Hitler, simple a belief that Scottish people should not be forced to fight in British overseas wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Young_(classicist) You are spreading misinformation, never mind the reality that the SNP today is a completely different party to that of the 1940's.
No, it is not misinformation. For a person to refuse to fight because his conscience won't allow him is an act of bravery. For a person to refuse to fight because they don't want the British Government telling them what to do is an act of selfishness. To actively campaign for everyone to refuse to fight is an act of treason. Unless you are one of those who believe it doesn't matter what Hitler did just so long as he opposed England. Anyway I don't believe the vast majority of Scots shared your opinions which is why, as I said in the original post, hardly anyone supported them until after oil was discovered in the North Sea.
That's even worse. He wanted all the benefits of being British with none of the responsibilities. What a lowlife. I agree with you, though, there's no point in raking up the past. Still, on the one hand we have this sort of thing: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-press-scots-separatists-answers-000443542.html In a typically robust response, the SNP called the committee's report "an embarrassment to its authors" and said it had already answered many of the questions raised. "The days of Westminster committees or Conservative and Labour governments telling the people of Scotland what to do are over," said Stewart Hosie MP, a senior SNP lawmaker in London. But Alex Salmond says this: Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated. (Taken From the consultation paper kindly provided by Viv.) Who is pulling whose strings here? Anyway, I'd like to know the answers to the questions the SNP claim to have answered and would be glad if someone could provide a link to them.
You are suffering from the very hysteria that you were blaming others for. He did not believe that Scotland should fight for England. It had nothing to do with Hitler and it has nothing to do with this thread. I suggest you start a different thread on your lie. However I do know that many people in the whole of Britain did not want ww2. My father in law, an intelligent man and University lecturer gave up religion because one week the Minister was praying for peace and the next supporting war. My own father also Scottish joined early and though his choice was to drive a van with a red cross on it picking up the injured, not to fight, he served with Montgomery and the Desert Rats. Scotland did fight in WW2 along with England, Wales and NI and to suggest there was any conspiracy with Hitler by anyone is simply a lie. However issues of Home Rule and no information on the soon to be treatment of the Jews, Roma's etc by Hitler, meant questions of whether to join the war would have been obvious. Indeed obvious at any time. Look at the demonstrations against Iraq. You try to manipulate this into something it was not. You forget that most of the UK population was in no mood for war.... and it has nothing to do with the independence question. You are simply trying to stir up hatred, not very pleasant. If you wish to discuss the second ww2 and Scotland's participation in it then please start a new thread. For my own part I would not be for Devo Max as one of the most important things for me is that Scotland has her own foreign policy and gets control of which wars she joins in. To that extent I am in agreement with the person you mentioned.
